DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002315275-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-10-17

000010860

Contested design: 002315275-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0023152750001 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Wojciech Pawłowski PPH CERKAMED

Poland (PL)

Kwiatkowskiego 1, 37-450 Stalowa Wola, Poland

Represented by

Kancelaria Prawa Patentowego Tadeusz Ostrzychowski

Tadeusz Ostrzychowski

Holder · RCD owner

TSK Laboratory Europe B.V.

Netherlands (NL)

Krukkerd 5A, 5688 LH Oirschot, The Netherlands

Represented by

V.O.

Prior art cited (2)

Other⚠ rejected as evidence

Medical instruments. TOP disposal needles for lavage, sterile

Company standard ZN-08/591-519 · MIFAM S.A. · disclosed 2008-11-24

Publication⚠ rejected as evidence

Top disposable needles for lavage, sterile

Product Manual, Part B · MIFAM S.A. · disclosed 2010-08-04

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 5Article 6Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on an earlier design for lavage needles shown in a 2008 company standard and a 2010 product manual.
  • The holder replied that disclosure of the earlier design had not been proven, that the submitted representation did not permit comparison, and that the contested RCD was new and had individual character.
  • The Division held that the company standard and manual were internal documents and did not objectively show that the earlier design had been made available to the public under Article 7(1) CDR.
  • Because prior disclosure was not proven, the evidence could not establish lack of novelty or individual character, so the invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

24.02

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000105480

vs FBGC Limited

2019-08-13Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)248
000009878

vs Vitus Maria Huber

2018-07-31Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)248
000117392

vs CILAG GMBH INTERNATIONAL

2023-05-15Art 25(1)(b)247
000118097

vs CILAG GMBH INTERNATIONAL

2023-05-15Art 25(1)(b)247
000118077

vs CILAG GMBH INTERNATIONAL

2023-03-22Art 25(1)(b)247
000117453

vs SHANGHAI TENGXIANG TRAVEL PRODUCTS CO.,LTD

2023-03-20Art 25(1)(b)247
000117372

vs Biovico Sp. z o.o.

2023-02-23Art 25(1)(b)247
000115342

vs Elsa Vermögens- und Beteiligungs AG

2022-06-15Art 25(1)(b)247